TOPIC:

Just on that blog, I can't say I agree with their stance on the proposed reduction in drink driving limits.
Yes, it's in the publican's interest to keep it as it is, but also in the public's interest.
Before rushing to reduce the limit from 80 to 50, I would like to see some statistics to back up the claim that this will stop the carnage on the roads.
I wonder how many accidents are caused by people with a blood/alcohol level of, say, between 50 and 100? If someone is going to have ten pints and drive home then lowering the limit will do nothing to deter them. On the other hand, the person who stops in for a pint on the way home from work, or has a drink with a meal are more likely to be caught out with the new levels.
It's fine for the blog to focus in on the lack of non-alcoholic beers available, but that, to me, isn't the real issue.

The north western coroner was interviewed a while ago, he said the majority of drink drive deaths has 300mg at time of death. That around 5-6 pints in their system not including what had been metabolized over the hours before death, If you allow 2 hours per pint.

"noby":3qpkk3z7 wrote: Before rushing to reduce the limit from 80 to 50, I would like to see some statistics to back up the claim that this will stop the carnage on the roads.[/quote:3qpkk3z7]When New Zealand was debating the same issue, they produced this report[/url:3qpkk3z7].

[quote:3qpkk3z7][b:3qpkk3z7]International Results of Decreasing Blood Alcohol Concentration[/b:3qpkk3z7]

Almost every country that has lowered the blood alcohol concentration to 50mg or lower has experienced traffic safety benefits in terms of reduced crashes, injuries, and fatalities.

Australia
NSW experienced an eight percent reduction in fatal accidents and a seven percent reduction in serious accidents associated with the reduction of the legal blood alcohol content from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml. Single vehicle night-time collisions were also reduced by 11 percent.

After Queensland reduced its blood alcohol concentration limit to 50mg at the end of 1982, there was an 18 percent reduction in fatal collisions and a 14 percent reduction in serious crashes.

Austria
In Austria the legal blood alcohol concentration was lowered to 50mg in early 1998. A recent study has shown that this resulted in an overall decrease of just over 9 percent in alcohol-related crashes relative to the total number of crashes.

Germany
Since Germany introduced a 50mg blood alcohol concentration drink-drive limit in 1998, the number of alcohol-related accidents in Cologne has more than halved.

Belgium
In Belgium, where the limit was reduced to 50mg in 1994, there was a 10 percent decrease in fatalities in 1995 and a further reduction of 11 percent in 1996.

France
Reducing the legal blood alcohol concentration to 50mg in France in 1995 is reported to have reduced fatalities by four percent.[/quote:3qpkk3z7](Edited for conciseness.)

The other thing they note, but can't explain quite why it happens, is that when the limited is reduced, the amount that people will drink before driving, on whichever side of the law they fall, goes down. You will get fewer people driving with blood alcohol over 80 if the limit is reduced to 50. In my opinion this effect goes a long way to compensate for the criminalisation of the 50-79mg driver.

It's another of those correlation versus causation things, isn't it?

Are they cause and effect, or two effects with a common cause?

Those drops in road deaths and rates of drink driving could have been part of a natural trend in countries where drink driving is an issue. I mean if there is a changing cultural attitude to drink driving, then I would expect to see results like this, regardless of where the legal alcohol limit is.

What I am saying is that the reduction of adverse affects of drink driving and the reduction in the legal blood alcohol limit for driving, are actually both results of changing attitudes.

When Twenty gets it right, he really gets it right[/url:2431oy8z].

MrsBeerNut pointed out that thing with the Drimnagh screwdriver killings is that they were sparked not by drunken kids, but by someone [i:2431oy8z]refusing[/i:2431oy8z] to buy drink for kids. If ever there was a clearer illustration that it's the Irish attitude to drink that's the problem, not its availability.

Or it just a bunch of scum bags that society really need to knock it to place.